First Person Shooter
The
First Person Shooter (FPS) genre and all of its sub/co-genres are my absolute
favorite genre. As a youth, I played FPS games for hours upon hours and as an
adult with very limited time I still play FPS games because this genre is the
most time-flexible genre. At its core, FPS games give goals and rewards in
short bursts whether it's in singleplayer or multiplayer and the gameplay is
extremely addicting. Due to this infrastructure, consumers can play for
multiple hours without getting fatigued and those of us with limited free time
to play video games can play in short sessions with the same sense of reward; a
unique selling point which no other genre can deliver. Unfortunately, this
principle often turns into not giving the player a reason to invest emotionally
into the game; other than functional gameplay and gameplay rewards. This
unfortunate side-effect has led to massive criticism of FPS games because they
severely lack good story-telling. Despite this, the First Person Shooter genre
is arguably the most profitable video game genre which proves that gameplay
matters more than story, regardless of what critics and consumers say.
There
are a lot of criteria that must be met for a game to be considered a
"good" FPS. To start, the game must be a first-person game; a-la
"First Person Shooter". However, since the game is in first-person, a
large part of the experience boils down to player immersion since the game is played
out essentially through the player's eyes as if they were actually in the game.
Thus, player agency is a primary component to take a FPS game from
"good" to "great". As the genre has evolved, the best
practices of designing a good FPS game centralize around player agency and
giving the player more control over their character. For instance, as the
technology and industry grew, every video game included a story of some sort.
In the early days every game included cut scenes or forced dialog to convey the
story to the player, but this method strips control away from the player and
destroys the immersive experience. Then in 1998, Half-Life revolutionized how story-telling was done in First Person
Shooter games by getting rid of cut scenes. Of course, scripted events were
still included and the designers cleverly crafted faux-cut scenes by putting
the player in small areas where they couldn't get too far away from NPCs that
progressed the plot. Even when the player did have the opportunity to miss
vital information, the level design was so masterful that eventually any player
could figure out what to do. Half-Life
was responsible for giving agency back to the player inside of the FPS world
and by giving player as much control as possible, immersion is streamed
seamlessly through game sections with different pacing.
The
case of Half-Life and pacing also
bring another aspect of what defines a good FPS; level design. Since First
Person Shooter games are known and loved for their high octane combat, having
great levels is a key for making a good FPS game. Levels need to portray a high
level of interest and vary in goals while still holding key gameplay elements
at heart. FPS games give developers a huge opportunity to experiment and do
something great with their level design; a pillar which should be taken
advantage of.
Lastly,
functionality and addicting gameplay are musts for a good FPS game. Tight
controls and fun weapons keep players coming back hour after hour, level after
level, and match after match. This final aspect of what defines a good First
Person Shooter is why players remember GoldenEye
007 and Half-Life so fondly and
why most players play the campaign for Call
of Duty once, or not at all, and then just play multiplayer. In both GoldenEye and Half-Life the controls were simple to understand, there was a wide
variety and functionality of weapons, levels/locations were unique from one
another (more so for GoldenEye), and
despite having essentially simple gameplay, levels allowed for unique
objectives to be given to the player. In modern singleplayer campaigns the
player just repeats the same objective over and over again which makes for a
tedious experience. However, the simple, fun, and hard to master gameplay along
with cool levels and a plethora of weapons is what makes modern FPS games worth
playing in the multiplayer scene.
I
obviously believe that Half-Life is one of the best examples of a First Person
Shooter game, I have loved every single FPS game I have ever played. The beauty
of the genre is every game has essentially the same gameplay, but every game is
slightly different to make each one unique from each other. Likewise, in the
90's during a boom of FPS games (e.g. Doom,
Wolfenstein, Quake, Duke Nukem, Serious Sam, Shadow Warrior, Half-Life,
GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) every single FPS had the same mechanics, a large
library of weapons, and the addictive gameplay of shooting guys in the face
often. However, the art and level design was what really set them apart from
each other.
So
in the modern age, consumers see a far less variety of quality FPS titles, but
they are never-the-less money making juggernauts. Plus they're still massively
fun. Unfortunately, with more complex technology and overall more complexly
constructed games comes more bugs and glitches. This would not be such a bad
problem if it weren't for release dates in order to actually make a return on
investment; which has also skyrocketed. The increasing number of released games
requiring patches after launch and the continuation of lackluster singleplayer
stories make modern FPS games seem like a shell of their 90's brethren. These
are surface problems though, and I still have the upmost faith in current and
future FPS titles. As I stated earlier, I have never played an FPS game that I
haven't loved and since this analysis is strictly about FPS titles I must
remove games with sub and co-grenres like Fallout
3 (FPS/RPG), Team Fortress 2
(FPS/Co-op/Versus) and Payday 2
(FPS/Co-op) from the running and select a modern FPS game's singleplayer
campaign. Which leaves us with Call of
Duty: Advanced Warfare.
I
chose CoD:AW because it's the most
recent pure FPS major title at the time of writing this analysis and it's a
best example of the FPS genre. As common with all FPS games it features the
same kind of mechanics players are all familiar with. The game is easy to
play/understand, but hard to master and it features a new story; both of which
makes it extremely inviting to new players. It also evolves old standards of
FPS games by introducing new mechanics and customizations like grappling hooks,
on-the-fly riot shields, and boosts. While these additions are new for the
franchise, they are not new bits of gameplay for the genre. However, they are
relatively new (within the last three years) and I believe we will continue to
see these being the trend (as seen in upcoming games like Overwatch and Evolve).
What makes Advanced Warfare really
stand out from contemporaries are the little things that define a good FPS
game. The graphics are phenomenal, they hired a superstar actor to voice and
model the main antagonist, the story is compelling and does a great job of
foreshadowing (albeit obvious for older/more mature players), and each level is
unique both functionally and with the goals given to the player. For instance,
the tutorial actually makes sense within the game world and isn't too
patronizing which is a perfect balance for old and new players. One level has
the player stealthily following an enemy target through a busy city, into small
alley ways, then turns into a covert silent take-down of an enemy hideout, but
the level ends in a massive chase straight out of a big-budget action movie.
Then there are levels where the player pilots a drone which they use to clear a
path for their A.I. teammates so they can capture a target. In short, Advanced Warfare takes advantage of what
makes FPS games great and uses those limited tools to give the player a varied
play experience through each level. This is a great change compared to the wave
after wave of army lines the player had to fight through in earlier Call of
Duty games where each level blurred together.
To
be perfectly honest, I cannot label any FPS game as a "worst
example". It's almost as if FPS games are the easiest to get right. While
I would refute any complaints about FPS games being buggy or having a terrible
story, I do have a critique of games in this genre. Every First Person Shooter
game does not hold up well over time. Most of the time it's because the graphic
quality or the smoothness of the controls are just lackluster years later, but
again, this is a testament to how great FPS games are because each new
iteration makes improvements that make their amazing predecessors look and feel
like garbage. However, I can still go back and play almost any old FPS game,
even the original Wolfenstein and
still have a blast. The only game I went back and played 10 years later that I
thought "This is so terrible and unplayable." was GoldenEye 007. The thing to keep in mind
though, was that I was playing it on my original N64 from 1998 on the original GoldenEye cartridge from 1998 on
probably the worst controller ever designed. Having only one analog stick made
the slow movement and combat infuriating because I was bogged down by ancient
technology while the enemy A.I. was not. I can only blame myself and becoming
so comfortable with having keyboard + mouse and dual analog sticks in order to
move and aim in any direction at the same time.
Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar
No comments:
Post a Comment